Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Is discussing with an applicant for a nuclear waste disposal job the risks involved a workaround?

If you as a third party have decided that it's not worth those risks, and that's why you generally disapprove of nuclear power wholesale, yeah I'd say it crosses the line to "work around."

The workaround in this case would be working around the immutable laws of nuclear physics, which IMO are easier to "excuse" than the social prejudice against sexual freedom. We can't change the laws of physics even if we wish they were less damaging, but we can change prejudice if we wish it was less damaging, so to behave towards prejudice with the same helplessness that we do towards physics IMO grants the prejudice more weight and deference than it merits.

Edit: actually that raises a good question, do you disapprove of nuclear power for the same reason you disapprove of porn, because it's inherently damaging to the workers? (Or municipal garbage service or politics or fishing or construction or animal rescue or other jobs that take a physical or emotional toll on the workers?)

I chose the nuclear waste example partially because physics is immutable. This allows for the risks to be assessed objectively, at least when compared to something like the mental risk of being a sex worker.

An objective discussion of risk doesn't need to have a moral component.

It follows then, this can be applied to the sex industry. Sure, it's much harder to discuss this objectively than nuclear waste. Okay... try harder then.

I chose the nuclear waste example partially because physics is immutable. This allows for the risks to be assessed objectively, at least when compared to something like the mental risk of being a sex worker.

An objective discussion of risk doesn't need to have a moral component.

It follows then, this can be applied to the sex industry. Sure, it's much harder to discuss this objectively than nuclear waste. Okay... try harder then.

Yeah well that's why I'm , because you seem to be saying you're not "excusing" the stigma, but you're not disagreeing that it would be "excusing" physics to do the same. Why don't you think you're excusing the stigma?

What I was getting at is that even though risk doesn't have to have a moral component, this particular risk (the stigma) does happen to have a moral component, in fact it has nothing else. So doesn't that... matter? IMO, a risk that is only morals should (morally) be torn down. Morals are a human construction, and why should we allow any extra risks to exist if they are our own construction? If the risks of radiation were under human control, wouldn't it be more important to tear them down than to excuse them by making workers choose between working around them or not being workers?

Originally Posted by subego

Are there aspects of nuclear power I disapprove of? Of course. How is that not possible?

Is one of them the damage to workers? I thought most people cared about the environment or the neighbors, and the workers were a neutral concern (since they gave informed consent). Do you feel differently?

Do I disapprove of the sex industry in and of itself? No. Frankly I think that would be stupid.

That's not what I read:

Originally Posted by subego

Maybe I wear Birkenstocks or something, but IMO all porn is worthy of some form of disapproval.

Hey subego I forgot to ask, do you approve of the MPAA ratings system, either in context or implementation? It's kind of the same idea as you give here, that young eyes need to be eased in to adult media like violence, sexuality and general vulgarity. If there was a MPAA-like rating system for porn (and by necessity porn would be brought out of the shameful shadows so that a rating system could be the slightest bit enforced), would that appeal to you?

So anyways, these are the statements I have a problem with:

Originally Posted by subego

I do have a concern for fried eyeballs, but I'm far more concerned with people seeing it and then taking it into the realm of reality.

Originally Posted by raleur

But we're talking about making those images publicly available, where others are able to take them out of context, or worse, as suggestions that it is acceptable to treat people in this way.

Originally Posted by subego

...the industry is vulgarizing society to some extent. It seems unavoidable to me.

Originally Posted by raleur

Puritans aren't the only people who oppose the proliferation of pornography, for as you have already noted, there are mental (and public) health issues involved, problems with vulgarization of society, concerns about it leading to attitudes of degradation and abuse.

Ok so the first one was still in the context of teenagers, and (ditto the above about MPAA) it's widely accepted that children are impressionable. But I'm skeptical that the other quotes (and possibly that one too) aren't intended for adults as well. What exactly is this "vulgarizing" you warn us about?

I might be reading too much into your posts, but on the other hand I know there's something to it because if the badmouthing of porn was solely about actors then you would be enthusiastic about animated porn (you're not, are you?).

And if you want, weigh in briefly on how this is supposed to be different from any other form of media (films, newscasts, video games, music, books, history, all of which is frequently graphic, unrealistic, and would constitute unacceptable behavior, yet we don't fear the "monkey see monkey do" affects from.

Though the MPAA proper are a bunch of d-bags, I don't have a problem with the concept, and as I say above, bringing it out into the open would be good.

I'll take another stab here at the vulgarization.

My problem isn't the porn, it's casual sex. Not that porn depicts casual sex (though it often does, that's kind of what it's selling), but that's what's actually happening on set between two (or more) people. Even if the people are in a committed relationship with each other, that it's being filmed for public consumption, and there is potentially money exchanging hands, lends an inescapable casual element.

It's just like three-ways. I don't have a moral problem with having a three-way, in fact, it seems like it'd be pretty awesome, but the overwhelming majority of them result in damaged relationships. Without some special circumstance, it would be a mistake to think I could beat the odds.

I don't have a moral problem with casual sex either. That seems pretty awesome too. As I said, that's a big selling point of porn. The reality of casual sex seems like kind of a mess to me, for at least one party, though usually both.

This isn't first-hand knowledge. Because of how much of a mess it seems, I've avoided it. I'll admit this wasn't the case when I was younger, I just didn't succeed.

That's my original angle. How many parents ride herd on their children's porn viewing habits?

I have literally never heard that term before, but google has my back. My guess at the answer... 0. What's yours?

Originally Posted by subego

It is just the actors. I don't have that issue with animated porn or pornographic comics.

Originally Posted by subego

My problem isn't the porn, it's casual sex. Not that porn depicts casual sex (though it often does, that's kind of what it's selling), but that's what's actually happening on set between two (or more) people. Even if the people are in a committed relationship with each other, that it's being filmed for public consumption, and there is potentially money exchanging hands, lends an inescapable casual element.
...
The reality of casual sex seems like kind of a mess to me, for at least one party, though usually both.

But your only issue with casual sex is for the actors, not the audience?

What does casual sex mean? I would have thought it meant casually switching between partners, but you took the time to include monogamy. Does it mean trivializing sex, turning it from something special into a casual game or a chore or akin to your daily constitutional (which some people3c around here consider even more special than sex)?

Originally Posted by subego

Though the MPAA proper are a bunch of d-bags, I don't have a problem with the concept

I was hoping for a stronger answer. Not do you object, but is it the answer to your prayers? Should there be PG (actual) porn, like with legit ratings, so kids can know what to watch? Would it work, given that kids tend to want to watch exactly what they're told NOT to watch? Would it work, given that it pretty much totally contradicts the entire premise of ratings in the legit film industry (or is that actually why it would work )?

My guess is zero as well, hence me being more concerned by the monkey-see, monkey-do. What would be valuable here is a 14-year-old who wants to talk about porn. Can we order one up?

Kids might not be adults, but they're not automatons either, they can use judgement to interpret reality from fantasy. IMO there are lots of media types flying under the parents' radar that we don't see a rash of kids copying. Colbert had a good line about that on Monday, remember when Sim City came out and all the kids started taking up urban planning?

I define casual sex as having having sex with a casual attitude towards it. This can take many forms.

Kids might not be adults, but they're not automatons either, they can use judgement to interpret reality from fantasy. IMO there are lots of media types flying under the parents' radar that we don't see a rash of kids copying. Colbert had a good line about that on Monday, remember when Sim City came out and all the kids started taking up urban planning?

Kids aren't automatons, but there's a pretty rich history of kids thinking they know stuff about sex, when in fact what they know would be called old wives' tales, if old wives were known for talking about sex with the kids.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

What's wrong with it?

In general, our ability to desire casual sex doesn't match up all that well with our ability to be casual about it.

Kids aren't automatons, but there's a pretty rich history of kids thinking they know stuff about sex, when in fact what they know would be called old wives' tales, if old wives were known for talking about sex with the kids.

What I'm gathering from this is that teens have always been misinformed, and the brave new world of cyber porn will make them misinformed, but the new misinformation is somehow worse than the old. Why is it worse? IMO the historical form of misinformation (including simply wishful thinking) has been balanced by their various other forms of information: human contact, school, parenting, and (non-smut) media. Those are all still there. If they weren't, no amount of curated porn would produce a healthy mind. Is this like the argument that juries believe what they see on video more than any other avenue?

A completely different question, doesn't the internet mean that for the first time ever, kids can actually see more realistic filth, such as amateur sex tapes of regular well-adjusted average-looking people doing good old fashion boning, instead of the staged kind? Isn't that like the pinnacle of an accurate introduction introduction to healthy sexuality?

In general, our ability to desire casual sex doesn't match up all that well with our ability to be casual about it.

I am not comfortable with the line of reasoning that what we (the general public) want is less proper in some way than what our betters tell us we should want or are able to want. Sure there are going to be some rude awakenings, but that is part of what it means to be living in reality. Protecting humanity from reality is a scary prospect for me.

The biggest problem with an explicit but accurate and genuinely useful and educational resource for teaching teens all about sex is that unrelated adults (ie teachers) won't ever be allowed to tell them it exists, let alone sit them in front of it to learn. At least not the kids who need to learn it the most anyway.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

I am not comfortable with the line of reasoning that what we (the general public) want is less proper in some way than what our betters tell us we should want or are able to want. Sure there are going to be some rude awakenings, but that is part of what it means to be living in reality. Protecting humanity from reality is a scary prospect for me.

I'm getting a little lost here. It isn't what you want which is a problem, it's whether you act on it.

Isn't an analysis of the results of people who engage a behavior "reality"?

A completely different question, doesn't the internet mean that for the first time ever, kids can actually see more realistic filth, such as amateur sex tapes of regular well-adjusted average-looking people doing good old fashion boning, instead of the staged kind? Isn't that like the pinnacle of an accurate introduction introduction to healthy sexuality?

On one hand, absolutely yes. On the other, I get the impression the majority of this finds its way on to the Internet without the consent of one of the parties.

This (in a general sense) is the same problem I have with standard porn: a decent likelihood there's some nastiness going on in what you're watching. The homemade stuff is probably a better example because there's no argument about whether lack of consent is leaving the realm of propriety.

This doesn't make me want to go on a crusade against porn (or homemade porn, seeing as how I really like it), but it also puts a brake on what would otherwise be "rah, rah, porn is awesome" attitude from me.

On one hand, absolutely yes. On the other, I get the impression the majority of this finds its way on to the Internet without the consent of one of the parties.

This (in a general sense) is the same problem I have with standard porn: a decent likelihood there's some nastiness going on in what you're watching.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that "nastiness" is nearly always against the female side. This is the part where Shaddim reminds us that the females are directing some of it now, even running the company in some cases (burning angel? might be a different one like that that I'm thinking of). That changes everything, doesn't it? Doesn't that constitute feminism in more than just self-interest, if it answers the question of "isn't that nasty... somehow?"

I find it hard to believe you think that the men in those flicks are being unfairly taken advantage of.

The homemade stuff is probably a better example because there's no argument about whether lack of consent is leaving the realm of propriety.

How would you know from the other end of the internet whether one of the participants changed their mind afterwards or never knew in the first place?

That's kind of my point, I don't know the chance. I never posted homemade porn, so my sample size for judgement is less than 1. The only way I would ever know about it was if someone spoke up. Have they?

I'd bet dollars to donuts that "nastiness" is nearly always against the female side. This is the part where Shaddim reminds us that the females are directing some of it now, even running the company in some cases (burning angel? might be a different one like that that I'm thinking of). That changes everything, doesn't it? Doesn't that constitute feminism in more than just self-interest, if it answers the question of "isn't that nasty... somehow?"

Both sides of the equation are asked to either be detached from the emotional impact of the sex they're having, or if they're not, suffer from that inability.

I'd say in general, men tend towards the former and women tend towards the latter, but both are nasty.

That's kind of my point, I don't know the chance. I never posted homemade porn, so my sample size for judgement is less than 1. The only way I would ever know about it was if someone spoke up. Have they?

Have people ever spoke up about having their bitz posted online? That's a big yes.

We're just talking things that would be called porn, right? Not nip slips or whatever? Can you give an example?

I'm worried we've crossed wires or something. You've never heard of people having their naked pictures or videos being posted online without their consent? Paris Hilton? Scarlett Johannsen? Christina Aguilerra? You've never seen a PSA warning the young-uns about avoiding that fate?

Here's a non-profit, funded by Berkley and Stanford, which is a resource for people who have had their naked pictures and videos without their consent.

“I would never wish what I went through on my worst enemy. Moving on has proven harder than what I thought. I still catch myself screening all my phone calls, becoming weary of phone numbers on my caller ID that I don’t recognize, receiving emails from strangers (that turn out to be spam) and avoiding all social networking sites. I guess you can say I’ve become accustomed to hiding and am really cautious about what I do online now. Even with the settlement in place, I’m still afraid he’ll find me (or find information on me) and post that online. His actions will just follow me for the rest of my life regardless of what I do.”

-Jane Doe, 7 years after harassment began
and 1.5 years after case settled

It seems to me in a best case scenario you have someone who is able to successfuly practice emotional detachment from the sex they're having.

Okay, I have the same views as you, with regards to my sex life. I haven't always, but things change and people change, etc.. But, I don't expect that from others. They want to treat it with reverence and keep it as a sacred thing, good for them, if they don't, likewise. I don't have a single recrimination to heap upon them, not one. Treat it like some type of sacrament or make it into a sport, I'm fine either way. Leveling personal judgments of a moral nature only drags you down and eventually turns you into a self-righteous ass.

I've backed adult businesses, mostly videos, and I was in one a very, very long time ago (long enough that they were still called films and they were using tape), it isn't a big deal now and it wasn't one back then. In my individual experience, it was kinky, exciting, and more difficult than I'd imagined. "Go, stop, move your hand, move your leg, get it up, get it out, more lube, pop here, pop there." For me it didn't pay enough for the time and irritation, but it was an experience. Needless to say, I've had contact with a lot of adult performers, and while they're usually more coarse than the "average" person, they're like anyone else in most ways and you'd have a tough time guessing what they do for a living (and most work other jobs, like bartending or secretarial work). The majority aren't warped, twisted, or disgusting, they simply don't see monogamy and traditional sexual norms as being worthwhile. Bully for them.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

Okay, I have the same views as you, with regards to my sex life. I haven't always, but things change and people change, etc.. But, I don't expect that from others. They want to treat it with reverence and keep it as a sacred thing, good for them, if they don't, likewise. I don't have a single recrimination to heap upon them, not one. Treat it like some type of sacrament or make it into a sport, I'm fine either way. Leveling personal judgments of a moral nature only drags you down and eventually turns you into a self-righteous ass.

I've backed adult businesses, mostly videos, and I was in one a very, very long time ago (long enough that they were still called films and they were using tape), it isn't a big deal now and it wasn't one back then. In my individual experience, it was kinky, exciting, and more difficult than I'd imagined. "Go, stop, move your hand, move your leg, get it up, get it out, more lube, pop here, pop there." For me it didn't pay enough for the time and irritation, but it was an experience. Needless to say, I've had contact with a lot of adult performers, and while they're usually more coarse than the "average" person, they're like anyone else in most ways and you'd have a tough time guessing what they do for a living (and most work other jobs, like bartending or secretarial work). The majority aren't warped, twisted, or disgusting, they simply don't see monogamy and traditional sexual norms as being worthwhile. Bully for them.

The only recrimination I'm making is against those who say others being emotionally detached from sex (or worse) is awesome, by extension of them believing porn is awesome.

I'm worried we've crossed wires or something. You've never heard of people having their naked pictures or videos being posted online without their consent? Paris Hilton? Scarlett Johannsen? Christina Aguilerra? You've never seen a PSA warning the young-uns about avoiding that fate?

I just didn't know what you were referring to in the context of "vulgarizing society." And actually I still don't. I understand sympathy for porn performers (and certainly for unintentional ones), but I don't see the connection with the vulgarization of society, or what that vulgarization is (like what would be the difference between our society and one devoid of this particular vulgarization?).

And just for the record, is animated porn still fully awesome by you and exempt from the vulgarization? Just trying to understand if it's the viewing that makes it vulgar or the capturing.

Animated is cool, it's the capturing. I mean, you can have vulgarizing animated porn, really vulgarizing (Google "vore", or don't ), but it isn't inherently so because there are no actual people involved.

To answer your vulgarization question, I'm going to stick with the "unintentional porn" example because it's more cut and dried.

If there was somehow no unintentionally released amateur porn, society would be less vulgarized because:

A) People wouldn't be getting violated (duh).

B) People would be able to watch it without pretending they aren't complicit in the violation. I think watching someone get violated and pretending that's not what's happening (which I fully admit I do), vulgarizes you.

The only recrimination I'm making is against those who say others being emotionally detached from sex (or worse) is awesome, by extension of them believing porn is awesome.

I'm not saying porn is awesome, but it is unavoidable and many (most?) find it entertaining. Of course, you get into matters of "what is or isn't pornography?" but as long as the performer's rights aren't being violated, and the viewer can lawfully view such material, providing such entertainment is perfectly acceptable. While some is of noticeably superior quality, as long as it's legal "what the hell".

Me sharing that I've been in an adult film isn't news, I talked about it here 7 or 8 years ago. At the time, it was >20 years ago, I was just looking for a way to make some extra cash while in college.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

To answer your vulgarization question, I'm going to stick with the "unintentional porn" example because it's more cut and dried.

If there was somehow no unintentionally released amateur porn, society would be less vulgarized because:

A) People wouldn't be getting violated (duh).

B) People would be able to watch it without pretending they aren't complicit in the violation. I think watching someone get violated and pretending that's not what's happening (which I fully admit I do), vulgarizes you.

Or does something "not good" to you.

Sub, I wonder if you aren't making a couple of false distinctions, one between porn as a commodity and the private nature of sexuality, and one between public and private?

Maybe you could clarify? I'm having trouble seeing your argument. For example, as you stated above, people who watch porn pretend that they aren't complicit in a violation. But is there a violation? And of what?

A violation of privacy? There is no privacy once one enters the public sphere: as individuals, we bear the sole responsibility for our actions, and we alone must take care to avoid such images. When there are exceptions, we have laws that forbid stalking and other invasions of privacy, but anything that doesn't violate them must be fair game.

A violation of respect? As we have established in this thread, respect comes solely from freely entered contracts between individuals, and social life is nothing more than a contract. So, just as with privacy, anyone who enters the public sphere must bear the consequences of that participation, regardless of their intention.

In other words, 'vulgarization' seems to imply some kind of moral principle that exists outside of the public/private and producer/consumer relationships. Since you've restated your opposition to moral judgments, I wonder if vulgar is the right term (I know I mentioned it earlier, but it might not work so well for your argument)?

You've mentioned (and given disturbing evidence of) the psychological problems that "unintentional porn" can cause. Maybe you're arguing from a public health perspective? But even then, wouldn't "it's terrible and tragic, but they should have known better" be the proper response?

Sub, I wonder if you aren't making a couple of false distinctions, one between porn as a commodity and the private nature of sexuality, and one between public and private?

Maybe you could clarify? I'm having trouble seeing your argument. For example, as you stated above, people who watch porn pretend that they aren't complicit in a violation. But is there a violation? And of what?

A violation of privacy? There is no privacy once one enters the public sphere: as individuals, we bear the sole responsibility for our actions, and we alone must take care to avoid such images. When there are exceptions, we have laws that forbid stalking and other invasions of privacy, but anything that doesn't violate them must be fair game.

A violation of respect? As we have established in this thread, respect comes solely from freely entered contracts between individuals, and social life is nothing more than a contract. So, just as with privacy, anyone who enters the public sphere must bear the consequences of that participation, regardless of their intention.

In other words, 'vulgarization' seems to imply some kind of moral principle that exists outside of the public/private and producer/consumer relationships. Since you've restated your opposition to moral judgments, I wonder if vulgar is the right term (I know I mentioned it earlier, but it might not work so well for your argument)?

You've mentioned (and given disturbing evidence of) the psychological problems that "unintentional porn" can cause. Maybe you're arguing from a public health perspective? But even then, wouldn't "it's terrible and tragic, but they should have known better" be the proper response?

Just to be clear, in the post you quoted I was talking exclusively about homemade porn distributed without consent.

Maybe I misunderstand, but isn't "they should have known better" some pretty hardcore victim blaming?